Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010282242025 2026:GAU-AS:2406 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./22/2026 SRI KRISHNA KAMAL BARUAH S/O SRI BANESWAR BARUAH R/O MEKANAR CHUBURI, P.O BIHAGURI, P.S TEZPUR, DIST SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:RAJU TURI S/O LT. RAMA TURI R/O-RAJAPATHAR GAON P.S-DHEKIAJULI DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN -78411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J PAYENG, MS. N S RAJKHOWA,MS. SUSMITA DOLEY,MS A PAYENG,I GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, (AMICUS CURIAE R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 18-02-2026 Heard Mr. J. Payeng, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Page No.# 2/7 A. Hassan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent and Mr. S. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 30.06.2022 in connection with Dhula P.S. Case No. 114/2022 [Special POCSO Case No. 131/2022 pending before the Court of Special Judge, Darang at Mangaldoi] u/s 354/354(A)/302/201 and 511 R/W 376 IPC and section 9(P)/10 of POCSO Act. 3. Scanned copy of the case record already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Payeng, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present bail application has been filed after rejection of the earlier Bail Application No. 1433/2025 dated 22.08.2025 wherein the Court has specifically directed the learned Trial Court to examine 5/6 nos. of witnesses and were also named in the said order. In pursuant to the order, the prosecution had already examined 10 nos. of witnesses including all the witnesses who were named in the order and hence considering this aspect of the case, prayer for bail of the present petitioner may be considered. 5. Mr. Payeng further submitted that till date the accused is in custody for 3 years 7 months and 18 days. So, considering his long period of incarceration also he may be enlarged on bail. Mr. Payeng further submitted that out of 96 nos. of cited witnesses 43 nos. of witnesses had already been examined by the prosecution including all the vital witnesses and most of the remaining witnesses are some of the official witnesses and hence the question of hampering or tampering evidence of those witnesses also does not arise at this Page No.# 3/7 stage. The accused being the permanent resident of the addressed locality, he will provide sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Court. 6. Mr. Hassan, the learned Special PP submitted in this regard that since 22.10.2025 i.e. the last order of rejection, the prosecution has already examined 10 nos. of witnesses including the named and the vital witnesses. However, some of the witnesses the prosecution did not examine as those were not considered as the vital witnesses for prosecution. 7. However, Mr. Hassan further submitted that one Ajgar Ali who could be examined by prosecution is one of the vital witnesses who saw the entire incident for the first time when the petitioner even sought for help in bringing the dead body of the deceased. Mr. Hassan accordingly submitted that he is a vital witness for prosecution and hence his prayer for bail application may be considered by the learned Trail Court below after examining of the said Ajmer All. 8. Mr. Hassan further submitted that on three occasions i.e. on 25.11.2025, 29.11.2025 and 12.12.2025 they brought the witnesses. But, those could not be examined due to absence of the learned Presiding Officer. 9. In that context, it is submitted by Mr. Payeng that though the witnesses were called for but on the last occasion as well as on the next date also the said Ajmer Ali which is considered to be one of the vital witnesses for the prosecution was not called for to be examined. He further submitted that there is sufficient delay in trial of the prosecution and the accused/petitioner is in custody for more than 3 years 7 months, which even violates his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. Mr. Das the learned Amicus Curiae submitted in this regard that some of Page No.# 4/7 the vital witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution and he further submitted that it is not a case that the petitioner would not hamper or tamper with the evidence of the official witnesses as he has the earlier history of tampering the evidences of official witnesses which reveals from the charge- sheet. Earlier some of the police officers as well as Medical Officers were trying to protect the interest of the accused and those official officers are now booked as accused/persons in the present case. Accordingly, M. Das submitted that only considering the length of detention, the bail petition cannot be considered as the probability of hampering or tampering with the official witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage. 11. Mr. Das further submitted that it reveals from the case record that within one year, 43 nos. of witnesses were already examined by the prosecution and thus the trial is also going in a good pace. Hence, it cannot be considered that there is an unnecessary delay in the proceeding for violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Das accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that the case of the present petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 12. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR and other relevant annexure. It is an admitted position that the present petitioner is in custody since more than 3 years 7 months 18 days and till date the prosecution could examine as any as 43 nos. of witnesses out of 96 listed witnesses. As submitted by Mr. Payeng, the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is also seen that while rejecting the earlier Bail Application No. 1433/2025 dated 22.08.2025, the detailed of the merit of the case was discussed and considering the submission made by Mr. Hassan, the learned Special PP, the Court was also directed to examine the vital Page No.# 5/7 witnesses as referred in the said bail application within 2/3 months from the date of order. From the submission made by Mr. Hassan, the learned Special PP, it is seen that in pursuant to the said order the prosecution has examined almost all the vital witnesses as stated while passing the order in earlier bail application. But, from the submission made by Mr. Hassan, it is seen that as per the prosecution one more vital witness, namely, Sri Ajgar Ali is yet to be examined by the prosecution. In the same time, it is seen that there was no such procedural lapse on the prosecution part as they brought witnesses also in three occasions wherein the Court was on leave and hence the witnesses could not be examined. But, there is no material that on said three days the said Ajgar Ali, who is considered to be one of the vital witnesses of the prosecution was brought before the Court only for examination. However, it is seen that till date 43 nos. of witnesses have been examined including the vital witnesses and there are some official witnesses are left to be examined by the prosecution. 13. As submitted by Mr. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae from the charge-sheet it is seen that in earlier occasion there is an allegation against the present petitioner when he tried to tamper with some other evidences as well as the medical evidences and some of the Medical Officers as well as some Police Officers were also working in the interest of the present petitioner. But, at this stage it is seen that those officers are already made accused in the case wherein it was alleged that a false and fabricated Post Mortem Report are submitted by the earlier Medical Officer with connivance with some other officials as well as with the accused/persons. But, only considering the earlier conduct of the accused/petitioner it cannot be held that the evidences of all other official witnesses will also be hampered or tampered with by the present petitioner, if he is released on bail at this stage. Admittedly most of the vital Page No.# 6/7 witnesses are already being examined by the prosecution. But, till date more than 50 nos. of witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution and the completion of the examination of these witnesses will also take a considerable period for completion of the trial. However, it also cannot be denied that the trial is going on in a good pace and within 1/2 years 43 nos. of witnesses including all the vital witnesses are already examined by the prosecution and thus it cannot be stated that there is prolonged delay in the trial to violate the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. But, considering all other aspects of the case, the period of long incarceration already undergone by the accused/petitioner, vis-à-vis the order passed by this Court dated 22.08.2025 wherein specific direction was given to the prosecution as well as to the learned Sessions Judge to examine the vital witnesses etc., I find that further custodial detention of the accused/petitioner may not be required at this stage. 15. In view of this and considering all other aspects of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the present accused/petitioner is entitled to the privilege of bail at this stage and accordingly the same stands allowed. 16. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, the accused/petitioner, namely, Krishma Kamal Baruah, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; Page No.# 7/7 (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi; and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, without prior permission. 17. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant